Suggestions(1)
Exact(10)
There is not enough evidence to estimate this risk in individual patients.
There is not enough evidence to estimate this risk in individual patients [8].
But we have not data to precisely estimate this risk.
We made the choice in this model to focus on exposure risk rather than infection risk due to our prevailing interest in exploring the role of company affiliation in risk and using our survey data to estimate this risk.
Still more surprising is the lack of consensus on what studies should be used to estimate this risk.
In the study we can estimate this risk by calculating the proportion of individuals with the C allele present who develop ARDS (i.e. 11/219 = 0.050).
Similar(50)
Although the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer EORTCC) risk tables are recommended for estimating this risk [ 1, 2], the use of these tables is not always practical.
Other studies, most of which did not distinguish between incident and prevalent carriers, have estimated this risk between 8.5% and 33% [ 6, 7, 10- 13].
Most clinic attenders were inaccurate in their estimates of the population risk of breast cancer with only 24% able to give the correct figure prior to genetic counselling and 36% over-estimating this risk.
We estimated this risk to be 4% in absence of surveillance (loosely based on a one-year risk of detection of EAC of 0.5% [ 14] and a 5-year survival rate of EAC of 10 20% [ 24]).
Unfortunately, estimating this risk of infection is not possible in field studies, since detailed and expensive epidemiological and laboratory data are needed, such as structures of contact between hosts and time data on when infection enters the population.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com